Putin has only strengthened NATO

In his recent article, “ The wheels are falling off the system”, Dave Holmes rightly denounces NATO’s military build-up. But he fails to criticise Russia’s military build-up or its invasion of Ukraine.

Holmes says:

Under intense pressure from the Trump administration, at its June 25 meeting NATO agreed to massively boost “defence” (i.e., military) spending. Along with the turn to war, an intense Russophobia has gripped the European political elite. To justify its existence NATO needs enemies and Russia fits the bill. Fear and loathing of Russia is both cause and consequence of the NATO countries’ plans to dramatically increase military budgets. The failure of the West’s proxy war in Ukraine has stoked anti-Russia sentiment to unprecedented levels.

In reality, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has stoked anti-Russian sentiment in Europe. The invasion created fear among the people of Europe, particularly in Eastern European, Baltic and Nordic countries that are close to Russia and have experienced invasions by tsarist Russia and the former Soviet Union. The US government has taken advantage of this fear to pressure European governments into dramatically raising their military spending.

Holmes says:

Rather than threatening the NATO countries, Russia has itself been threatened by the remorseless eastward expansion of NATO.

If Russian President Vladimir Putin was genuinely concerned with NATO expansion, the invasion of Ukraine has been only counter-productive. In fact, it actually boosted NATO expansion. Sweden and Finland joined NATO soon after the invasion. Public opinion in both countries had previously been against joining. Russia’s invasion changed this. The Finnish border is very close to St Petersburg, so the NATO threat has increased as a result of Putin’s invasion.

This should come as no surprise. It was completely predictable. Why then did Putin invade? Was it Putin’s poor political judgement? Or was NATO expansion not his real concern? Boris Kagarlitsky points to growing popular discontent in Russia as a motive. The war gave Putin an excuse for increased repression. To justify the repression and promote “national unity” under his leadership, Putin needed a foreign enemy, and NATO fitted the bill.

Another possible motive (though not mutually exclusive) was Putin’s desire to grab more territory and resources from Ukraine. Putin may have viewed this as strengthening Russia and boosting his own prestige.

Holmes says:

Russia does not even want to occupy all of Ukraine. It aims there have always been clear: A neutral, demilitarised, non-NATO Ukraine; a purging of the far right from their strongholds in the power ministries (army and security services); and respect for the Russian language and culture (the Russian Orthodox Church, for instance, has been banned). Now it also wants recognition of its annexation of the Russia-oriented provinces in the south.

Putin’s demand that Ukraine be “demilitarised” suggests he wants a Ukrainian state that is weak and subservient to Russia – perhaps like the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which is subservient to Israel. While the “purging of the far right” is desirable, it must be carried out by the Ukrainian people, not Russian invaders. And what about purging the far right from the Russian state apparatus?

“Respect for the Russian language and culture” is desirable too. But so too is respect for Ukrainian language and culture, which are not respected in the Russian-controlled areas. As for the annexed provinces, to describe them as “Russia-oriented” is simplistic. They are ethnically mixed and I am not aware of any reliable evidence on whether the majority in those areas want to belong to Russia or Ukraine, or hate both governments.

Holmes says:

And in 2014 the US organised a regime change operation in Ukraine, bringing to power anti-Russia, pro-West forces backed by the far right. Ukraine’s military was built up by the West and the country became a de facto member of NATO. The regime waged an eight-year long civil war against ethnic Russians in the Donbas region.

The events of 2014 were complex. Most of the participants in the Maidan rebellion were concerned about corruption and repression. But there were also far right forces involved. Similarly, most participants in the “anti-Maidan” rebellion in south-eastern Ukraine were motivated by legitimate concerns about the post-Maidan government in Kyiv. But there were also far right pro-Russian groups there too, such as the Russian Imperial Movement. And reactionary forces were active on both sides during the post-2014 conflict.1

I agree with Holmes when he says:

However, the arms build-up will have dire consequences for the wellbeing of the mass of ordinary people of Europe as they face fast onrushing climate change.

But the same is true of Russia’s military build-up. Both Russia and NATO are diverting resources to arms and war, while neglecting the needs of their people and the environment.

• 1

  For more detail, see my article “The complex history of eastern Ukraine”.